e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[heybrad]

Mrkool.. Most of what you said in your response has nothing to do with your comments claiming the judges ruling in the markman was basically incompetance nor does it have much of anything to do with my challenges and providing proof your comments are not supported by facts.And in fact the facts show those comments about the judges ruling are totally refuted by the facts.

the comment about exceptions have exceptions to me at this point is nonsensical. I also don't think it has anything to do with the MArkman ruling. But I would love to hear specifically one exception to an exception over the Markman ruling you might be talking about.

We were discussing the markman ruling and now you seem to be veering off into comments about things other than the comments you made about the judges markman ruling.

and also about tracking the progress of the ustpo. None of the ustpo recent activities on the stock had anything to do with the markman ruling. None of them touch on anything regarding the markman. But again so we can all understand elaborate on how the USTPO reexam and changes to the patent had anything to do with the Markman hearing ruling. She was very specific in her ruling, detailed in her ruling and the action afterward by edig, DM and others shows your comments are not supported by the actual facts/.

Your only comment on topic regarding discussions is the markman doesn't have much weight which is aslo once again not supported by facts and in fact are once again shown to be wrong as many of the defendants currently are requesting orders based on the former markman ruling. Yes a tactic but surely Mrkool these smart lawyers wouldn't ask this if it as you say doesn't have a lot of weight.

Even Edig management said their understanding the markman rulings are valid in future cases.


But please I have asked and it's been posed elsewhere also what specifically in the reexamined patents overcomes the markman ruling. This is not being answered yet comments are made claiming the reexam stomped on the ram issue. . Maybe you could explain it. It would be a huge educational contribution if you could.

The reexamined patent didn't touch the ram issue, didn't stomp on the ram issue, didn't even discuss it. Ram I don't believe was ever mentioned in the patent claims. SO please if you answer just one of my comments answer this and tell us how specifically did the reexam stomp on the Ram issue and what wording did it.